In their essay on educating leaders, Philip Hallinger and Kamontip Snidvongs note that “the hallmark of successful school leadership lies in the ability to blend managerial and leadership roles in the service of student learning.” (10). The distinction between “management” and “leadership” is important. Management involves running non-academic areas of the school such as scheduling, facilities maintenance, enrollment, and accounting, while “leadership” are the actions that lead to credibility in the eyes of the teachers. For school leaders, the former role is apparent, but the latter can be easily overlooked.
In her essay about the importance of school administration, Mary F. Borba writes that by being able to recognize effective and ineffective instruction, principals are better able to “support, mentor, coach, and instruct teachers to improve their competencies.” (53). In other words, without proper knowledge of instruction, leaders will have difficulty communicating with teachers – something that could eventually lead to “intragroup conflict” (Gold 208). In a study on the sustainability of reform implementations in fifteen public schools, Mclaughlin and Mitra noted that principals who were strong in administrative support but lacking in instructional leadership were unable to earn the commitment of their staff (311).
A lack of proper communication channels also puts school standards at risk. In a study on teacher evaluations, Kimball and Milanowski noted that principals who lack the knowledge to give “constructive criticisms or recommendations on specific instructional strategies,” fail to induce teachers into improving their methods (61). Furthermore in a study on teacher professional development, the researchers found that leaders who could not integrate hands-on, content specific training into the daily life of the school, are less likely to produce “enhanced knowledge and skills.” (Garet et al. 935).
The above quotes come from researchers working in public school settings, so it is possible that the emphasis on instructional leadership is not held to the same standards in for-profit education organizations. However, in the few articles that could be found on school leadership in such institutes, the emphasis is the same if not more. In an article about charter school leaders published in Education Week, the anonymous author quotes the results of a survey that indicates “most charter school leaders are professional educators [whereby] the vast majority (74 percent) earned their highest degrees in traditional educational training from colleges of education [and] almost 60 percent are or have been state-certified school principals.”('The High Wire Job' 7). And Steven F. Wilson in his very thorough study on running schools as businesses concludes,
I found few principals of managed schools who were effective instructional leaders. Few were fluent in the instructional programs on which they relied. Very few could coherently cite test results in support of their claims, let along real-time data that revealed which classrooms and grades had gained traction with an instructional program and which others were as yet languishing. If the next [educational management organizations] are to make good on their claims to academic excellence, they must deploy school leaders who are consumed with instructional quality and the data by which to manage it. (350). (my bolds)
The last sentence of Wilson’s quote is worth emphasizing. The concern should not be whether management comes at the expense of leadership, but how the two can be effectively combined. As a private school’s survival depends almost entirely on enrollment numbers and parental satisfaction (profit), it makes sense that successful schools are constantly driven to improve curriculum and other outputs in a business-like fashion. As Wilson notes, leaders should be “consumed with instructional quality and data” much like the way a large firm is consumed with data on market shares and competitive pricing. “Leaders must be able to use information as a currency [because] many decisions about student learning must be made with supporting data.” (Hallinger and Snidvongs 13).
At the very least, schools want leaders who are competent enough to meet specific requirements and keep things running, but for organizations such as SUIS, this is not enough. These companies are mission driven to provide quality education and high levels of achievement. For a school leader, such a task begins with earning the trust and respect of teachers, who are the main agents of curriculum delivery (Clandinin and Connelly 363). The SUIS school leaders’ main responsibilities do happen to be steeped in instruction and learning but it is not readily apparent how these goals are to be aligned with the company’s overall “corporate” agenda. The fact of the matter is sufficient knowledge of schooling and instruction is absolutely critical and should be among one of the top criteria when selecting new leaders. But getting more to the point, an ideal school leader is not someone who begins his career as a skilled businessman and then changes focus to education, but rather someone well-trained in instructional methods and yet convinced by the efficacy of business.
No comments:
Post a Comment